- \n
- Attendance Details \n\t\t\t
- \nAgenda Frontsheet\n\t\t\t
![\"pdf](\"mgimages/logo-pdf-1.gif\")
PDF 85 KB \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n\t\t\t\t - Agenda reports pack\n PDF 5 MB \n\n\t\t\t\t
- \nPrinted minutes\n PDF 65 KB \n\t\t \n\n
Venue: Marion Attwood Room, Council Offices. View directions
\n\t\tContact: Nick Hughes \n\t\t01227 862 009\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\nItems\n\t\t\nNo.\n\t\t\tItem\n\t\t\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tApologies for absence
\nMinutes:
\nApology received from Councillors Parry and\nWindsor.
\nDisclosures by members and officers
\n\n(a) \nDisclosures of interest and their nature ie prejudicial or\npersonal.
\n\n
(b) \nDisclosures of lobbying.
\n\n
(c) \nDisclosures of whipping.
\nMinutes:
\nCouncillors Thomas, Reuby and Samper\ndeclared that they were members or reserve members of the\nDevelopment Control committee in relation to the discussion on the\nCity Life Scrutiny review report.
\nPublic Participation at meetings
\nProvided that notification has been given to\nthe Chief Executive by 12.30pm on Tuesday 9 March 2010, members of\nthe public may speak on any item on the agenda for a maximum of\nthree minutes.
\n\n
The Chairman to report any notifications\nreceived.
\nMinutes:
\nNone.
\nMinutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2010 PDF 66 KB
\nTO CONFIRM as a true record subject to the\ninclusion of Councillor Parry under apologies.
\nMinutes:
\nThe minutes were agreed as a correct\nrecord.
\nCall in of Executive Decisions
\nTO CONSIDER whether any of the decisions made\nby the Executive at its meeting on 4 March 2010, should be\ncalled-in.
\n\n
Please bring your\ncopy of the agenda and the minutes for the Executive meeting.
\n\n
Copies of both will\nbe available at the meeting for members of the public.
\n\n
Members are reminded that a request for\ncall-in must be delivered to the Monitoring officer within three\nclear working days of the publication of the decision.
\n\n
Minutes:
\nThere were no call-ins of the decisions made\nby the Executive at its meeting on the 4 March 2010. The Chairman drew attention to\nthe fact he had waived call-in powers for the report to the\nExecutive meeting, 4 March, on the relocation of the Pier Sports\nCentre. This was to\nenable a resolution to be passed giving delegated authority to\nofficers to reach an agreement on behalf of the council by the\nprescribed deadline of 5 March.
\nRural Transport Scrutiny Review Update PDF 67 KB
\nTo Consider.
\nAdditional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\nMinutes:
\nThe Improvement Manager provided an update to\nthe action plan arising from the review:
\n\n
\ni) \nAction 7 – a response was awaited from Natural\nEngland. Money was\navailable for a limited period of two years but clarification was\nbeing sought from Natural England on the funding position beyond\nthe two-year period.
\n\n
\nii) \nAction 6 – disappointment was expressed that no private hire\ncompany arrangement had been established. It was noted that no Parish\nCouncil had taken up the opportunity to investigate the matter\nfurther. The point was\nmade that take up of the scheme might be low and this may have been\nthe reason for the lack of interest.
\n\n
RESOLVED –
\nCity Life Scrutiny Review Report PDF 70 KB
\nTo Consider.
\nAdditional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\nMinutes:
\nThe Chairman introduced the\nreport. The committee\nconsidered the points raised at the Canterbury Area Member Panel\nearlier in the week and agreed the following: -
\n\n
\ni) \nThat the land adjoining\nthe Odeon Cinema south of St George's Place, Canterbury was used by\nsome as a public toilet - ACKNOWLEDGED;
\n\n
\nii) \nThat the map in Section 10\n(Safer City) should be revised to include additional main\npedestrian routes including those from south Canterbury and the\npedestrian routes to Christ Church University via Love Lane,\nMonastery Street and Havelock Street - AGREED;
\n\n
\niii) \nProvision of\ntoilets in the bus station - REJECTED. This was a matter for the station\noperator;
\n\n
\niv) \nThe\nrequest to provide benches along the whole of length of the\npedestianised area in the city centre for use by the elderly and\npeople with disabilities - REJECTED;
\n\n
\nv) \nThe comment from a member of the scrutiny review panel that there\nshould be a greater emphasis on the Police decision to increase\npatrols in the city centre – AGREED. It was agreed that the following\nstatement be inserted into Section 8 of the report: “The\ncouncil welcomes the recent decision by the Police to increase the\npatrols in the city centre and trusts that this will be\nmaintained”. \nOfficers were granted delegated authority to amend the report as\nnecessary to incorporate this comment.
\n\n
The sub-committee then considered the report\nand made the following comments: -
\n\n
\ni) \nSome of the quotations and photographs presented a negative\npicture. It was\npointed out that the review panel had included more positive photos\nat the final stage of drafting. The consultation had drawn out\nthe issues people would like to see addressed and this had to be\nreflected in the report.
\n\n
\nii) \nThe recommendations should be costed. It was pointed out that the role\nof the scrutiny review panel was to identify the issues and suggest\npossible solutions for the Executive to consider. It was not the role of the\nscrutiny review panel to establish the costs at this stage of the\nprocess. It was\nnoted that the City Centre Action Group (CCAG) would be invited to\nprepare costings where appropriate. It was also noted that a\nrecommendation had been included that the CCAG should report to a\nSenior Officer who could refer relevant matters to Management\nTeam.
\n\n
\niii) \nWhere it was stated that the recommendation could be implemented\nusing existing officer resources, there was still a cost in terms\nof how their work was prioritised. In response it was stated that\nthe recommendation would result in a more focussed approach rather\nthen a change in priority.
\n\n
\niv) \nWas there a timescale that could be placed on the\nrecommendations? The\ntimescales were variable depending in the nature of the\nrecommendation and the capacity of the officers and partners\naffected. These would\nbe considered as part of the regular action plan progress updates\nto the Sub-Committee.
\n\n
RESOLVED\n–
\nManagement of Freedom of Information requests PDF 133 KB
\nTo Note.
\nMinutes:
\nThe Assistant Head of Democratic Services\nintroduced the report. \nHe said there had been a threefold increase in the number of\nrequests since the introduction of Freedom of Information in\n2005. He drew\nattention to the council’s performance in responding to\nrequests, which was above the national average reported in a recent\nsurvey.
\n\n
Information was provided on the number of\nrequests referred to each department and the breakdown of requestor\ntypes. It was noted\nthat journalists was the highest individual category of\nrequestor.
\n\n
The sub-committee debated how FoI had helped\ncouncils to improve the quality of the responses provided to\nenquiries. It was\nnoted that Canterbury had been praised for its openness and\ntransparency in the local press. A question was asked about how\npersistent complainants were dealt with. It was stated that the council\ncould refuse to respond if it felt that the requests were becoming\nvoluminous or vexatious.
\n\n
RESOLVED – That the report be noted and\na recommendation made that at some point in a future the answers to\nthe most frequently asked requests be published on the council\nwebsite.
\nTimetable for monitoring scrutiny reviews PDF 67 KB
\nTo Consider
\nMinutes:
\nThe sub-committee received the monitoring\nupdate for the current programme of scrutiny reviews.
\n\n
The expected completion date for the\nCouncil-run Leisure Facilities review was questioned. The sub-committee was advised\nthat there had been a debate about the involvement of the portfolio\nholder in the review. \nAdvice had been received from the Head of Legal and Democratic\nServices that the portfolio holder could not be part of the review\ngroup, so it had yet to be decided whether a scrutiny panel or an\nExecutive Working Group would conduct the review.
\n\n
It was pointed out that the general election\nwould lead to a number of members being unable to attend\nmeetings. The chairman\nsaid the scheduling of meetings would be a matter for each panel to\ndecide.
\n\n
RESOLVED – that the report be noted.
\nDate of next meeting and items for consideration
\nThe next meeting of the Scrutiny Sub Committee\nwill take place on Wednesday 7 March 2010.
\n\n
Items under consideration will included:
\n\n
Crime and Disorder Partnership Scrutiny
\nMinutes:
\nThe next meeting of the Scrutiny Sub-Committee\nwould be on Wednesday 7 April 2010 at 9.30am.
\n\n
Items for the agenda would include reports on\nthe Westgate Towers scrutiny review action plan and the 2010/11\nscrutiny review programme.
\n PDF 85 KB \n\t\t \n\t\t\t PDF 5 MB PDF 65 KB \n\t\t Venue: Marion Attwood Room, Council Offices. View directions
\n\t\tContact: Nick Hughes \n\t\t01227 862 009\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t| No. | \n\t\t\tItem | \n\t\t
|---|---|
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Apologies for absence \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nApology received from Councillors Parry and\nWindsor. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Disclosures by members and officers \n\n \n\n \n\n(a) \nDisclosures of interest and their nature ie prejudicial or\npersonal. \n\n (b) \nDisclosures of lobbying. \n\n (c) \nDisclosures of whipping. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nCouncillors Thomas, Reuby and Samper\ndeclared that they were members or reserve members of the\nDevelopment Control committee in relation to the discussion on the\nCity Life Scrutiny review report. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Public Participation at meetings \n\n \n\n \nProvided that notification has been given to\nthe Chief Executive by 12.30pm on Tuesday 9 March 2010, members of\nthe public may speak on any item on the agenda for a maximum of\nthree minutes. \n\n The Chairman to report any notifications\nreceived. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nNone. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2010 \n \n\n \nTO CONFIRM as a true record subject to the\ninclusion of Councillor Parry under apologies. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe minutes were agreed as a correct\nrecord. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Call in of Executive Decisions \n\n \n\n \nTO CONSIDER whether any of the decisions made\nby the Executive at its meeting on 4 March 2010, should be\ncalled-in. \n\n Please bring your\ncopy of the agenda and the minutes for the Executive meeting. \n\n Copies of both will\nbe available at the meeting for members of the public. \n\n Members are reminded that a request for\ncall-in must be delivered to the Monitoring officer within three\nclear working days of the publication of the decision. \n\n Minutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThere were no call-ins of the decisions made\nby the Executive at its meeting on the 4 March 2010. The Chairman drew attention to\nthe fact he had waived call-in powers for the report to the\nExecutive meeting, 4 March, on the relocation of the Pier Sports\nCentre. This was to\nenable a resolution to be passed giving delegated authority to\nofficers to reach an agreement on behalf of the council by the\nprescribed deadline of 5 March. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Rural Transport Scrutiny Review Update \n \n\n \nTo Consider. \nAdditional documents: \n\t\t\t\t\t\n
Minutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe Improvement Manager provided an update to\nthe action plan arising from the review: \n\n \ni) \nAction 7 – a response was awaited from Natural\nEngland. Money was\navailable for a limited period of two years but clarification was\nbeing sought from Natural England on the funding position beyond\nthe two-year period. \n\n \nii) \nAction 6 – disappointment was expressed that no private hire\ncompany arrangement had been established. It was noted that no Parish\nCouncil had taken up the opportunity to investigate the matter\nfurther. The point was\nmade that take up of the scheme might be low and this may have been\nthe reason for the lack of interest. \n\n RESOLVED – \n
| \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t City Life Scrutiny Review Report \n \n\n \nTo Consider. \nAdditional documents: \n\t\t\t\t\t\n
Minutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe Chairman introduced the\nreport. The committee\nconsidered the points raised at the Canterbury Area Member Panel\nearlier in the week and agreed the following: - \n\n \ni) \nThat the land adjoining\nthe Odeon Cinema south of St George's Place, Canterbury was used by\nsome as a public toilet - ACKNOWLEDGED; \n\n \nii) \nThat the map in Section 10\n(Safer City) should be revised to include additional main\npedestrian routes including those from south Canterbury and the\npedestrian routes to Christ Church University via Love Lane,\nMonastery Street and Havelock Street - AGREED; \n\n \niii) \nProvision of\ntoilets in the bus station - REJECTED. This was a matter for the station\noperator; \n\n \niv) \nThe\nrequest to provide benches along the whole of length of the\npedestianised area in the city centre for use by the elderly and\npeople with disabilities - REJECTED; \n\n \nv) \nThe comment from a member of the scrutiny review panel that there\nshould be a greater emphasis on the Police decision to increase\npatrols in the city centre – AGREED. It was agreed that the following\nstatement be inserted into Section 8 of the report: “The\ncouncil welcomes the recent decision by the Police to increase the\npatrols in the city centre and trusts that this will be\nmaintained”. \nOfficers were granted delegated authority to amend the report as\nnecessary to incorporate this comment. \n\n The sub-committee then considered the report\nand made the following comments: - \n\n \ni) \nSome of the quotations and photographs presented a negative\npicture. It was\npointed out that the review panel had included more positive photos\nat the final stage of drafting. The consultation had drawn out\nthe issues people would like to see addressed and this had to be\nreflected in the report. \n\n \nii) \nThe recommendations should be costed. It was pointed out that the role\nof the scrutiny review panel was to identify the issues and suggest\npossible solutions for the Executive to consider. It was not the role of the\nscrutiny review panel to establish the costs at this stage of the\nprocess. It was\nnoted that the City Centre Action Group (CCAG) would be invited to\nprepare costings where appropriate. It was also noted that a\nrecommendation had been included that the CCAG should report to a\nSenior Officer who could refer relevant matters to Management\nTeam. \n\n \niii) \nWhere it was stated that the recommendation could be implemented\nusing existing officer resources, there was still a cost in terms\nof how their work was prioritised. In response it was stated that\nthe recommendation would result in a more focussed approach rather\nthen a change in priority. \n\n \niv) \nWas there a timescale that could be placed on the\nrecommendations? The\ntimescales were variable depending in the nature of the\nrecommendation and the capacity of the officers and partners\naffected. These would\nbe considered as part of the regular action plan progress updates\nto the Sub-Committee. \n\n RESOLVED\n– \n
| \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Management of Freedom of Information requests \n \n\n \nTo Note. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe Assistant Head of Democratic Services\nintroduced the report. \nHe said there had been a threefold increase in the number of\nrequests since the introduction of Freedom of Information in\n2005. He drew\nattention to the council’s performance in responding to\nrequests, which was above the national average reported in a recent\nsurvey. \n\n Information was provided on the number of\nrequests referred to each department and the breakdown of requestor\ntypes. It was noted\nthat journalists was the highest individual category of\nrequestor. \n\n The sub-committee debated how FoI had helped\ncouncils to improve the quality of the responses provided to\nenquiries. It was\nnoted that Canterbury had been praised for its openness and\ntransparency in the local press. A question was asked about how\npersistent complainants were dealt with. It was stated that the council\ncould refuse to respond if it felt that the requests were becoming\nvoluminous or vexatious. \n\n RESOLVED – That the report be noted and\na recommendation made that at some point in a future the answers to\nthe most frequently asked requests be published on the council\nwebsite. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Timetable for monitoring scrutiny reviews \n \n\n \nTo Consider \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe sub-committee received the monitoring\nupdate for the current programme of scrutiny reviews. \n\n The expected completion date for the\nCouncil-run Leisure Facilities review was questioned. The sub-committee was advised\nthat there had been a debate about the involvement of the portfolio\nholder in the review. \nAdvice had been received from the Head of Legal and Democratic\nServices that the portfolio holder could not be part of the review\ngroup, so it had yet to be decided whether a scrutiny panel or an\nExecutive Working Group would conduct the review. \n\n It was pointed out that the general election\nwould lead to a number of members being unable to attend\nmeetings. The chairman\nsaid the scheduling of meetings would be a matter for each panel to\ndecide. \n\n RESOLVED – that the report be noted. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Date of next meeting and items for consideration \n\n \n\n \nThe next meeting of the Scrutiny Sub Committee\nwill take place on Wednesday 7 March 2010. \n\n Items under consideration will included: \n\n Crime and Disorder Partnership Scrutiny \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe next meeting of the Scrutiny Sub-Committee\nwould be on Wednesday 7 April 2010 at 9.30am. \n\n Items for the agenda would include reports on\nthe Westgate Towers scrutiny review action plan and the 2010/11\nscrutiny review programme. \n | \n\t\t